### Extrajudicial confession made under local influence and unproved discovery panchnama cannot sustain a murder conviction.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vyara, for the murder of her husband, Guneshbhai Gamit, on the night of May 23-24, 2010.

The prosecution alleged that due to matrimonial disputes and the deceased's suspicion of her character, the appellant strangled him with a nylon ligature and inflicted abdominal injuries while he slept outside.

The case relied heavily on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant following the arrival of the Village Sarpanch (PW 4) and neighbors at the scene.

The Trial Court sentenced her to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

The appellant challenged this on grounds that the confession was involuntary and the circumstantial chain was incomplete.

1. Whether the extra-judicial confession made before the Village Sarpanch and other villagers was voluntary, truthful, and reliable enough to form the sole basis of conviction.

2. Whether the discovery of the nylon string at the instance of the accused was proved in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

3. Whether the prosecution established a clear motive to link the appellant to the crime in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court applied Section 302 of the IPC regarding murder.

It relied on Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, emphasizing that only information distinctly relating to the discovery of a fact is admissible, provided the exact words of the accused are proved.

Regarding extra-judicial confessions, the court identified them as "weak evidence" and applied principles from *Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu* and *Pawan Kumar Chaurasia v. State of Bihar*, holding that such confessions must be voluntary, truthful, and of "sterling quality".

Finally, it applied the principle from *Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana* that in circumstantial cases, the absence of motive requires the court to scrutinize evidence with extreme caution.

The High Court found the extra-judicial confession unreliable because it was made in the presence of 10–15 people only after the influential Village Sarpanch (PW 4) arrived, suggesting it was an outcome of pressure or local dominance rather than a voluntary act.

The court noted that neighbors who arrived earlier heard the appellant crying but did not report any confession at that immediate point.

Regarding the recovery of the nylon string, the Court observed that the Investigating Officer (PW 13) failed to depose the "exact words" uttered by the accused at the time of the alleged disclosure, rendering the discovery inadmissible under Section 27.

Furthermore, the court held that the motive—suspicion of character—remained an unproven "bald allegation" without evidence of any specific third party or illicit act, failing to complete the circumstantial chain.

It held that the extra-judicial confession did not inspire confidence and the recovery of the weapon was not legally established.

The High Court set aside the judgment dated 11.01.2012, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC, and ordered her immediate release if not required in any other case.

The appeal was allowed.